Talk:Earwax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Earwax article.
Article policies
Good article Earwax has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
May 15, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Good article GA This page has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance assessment scale
Wikipedia
 Earwax appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the New articles column on 10 January 2004.

Contents

[edit] older entries

Why is this not at earwax? Titles should be at the most common name, and I don't hesitate to assert that earwax is much more common than cerumen? It's a great article, though... Kudos to whoever wrote it.Tuf-Kat 18:50, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

I had read that one of the functions of earwax is to prevent insects from nesting in the ears. (They get stuck in the wax, and eventually ejected.) Is this correct? The article hints at it ("...also provides a degree of protection from... insects.") but does not go into detail. -- Dominus 15:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Besides the technical proceedure, there are a couple of old-fashioned ways of removing earwax which might be worth mentioning. One is to put olive oil in the ear, let it sit long enough to loosen the wax, then squirt out the olive oil with warm water. My girlfriend performed this proceedure on me a couple years ago and it worked very well. My hearing improved dramatically.

The other method involves specially made paper and wax tubes and burning, but that's a little more expensive and a little more dangerous. -- 64.81.175.9 17:13, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

And also ineffective - [1] 16:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What about basic non-instrumental removal such as after taking a shower or swim, placing your finger in your ear rotating downwards and pulling? It creates a tiny vacum and pulls some of the cerumen out, if you repeat it, you should be remove it safely and slowely? -- Sepht 17:15, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. JFW | T@lk 23:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am feeling so PROUD to be having such an intulectualy inspiring disscussion about "earwax".

As an encyclopedia, we need an article on earwax. If this does not inspire you, there are 2,405,943 (minus one, then) articles that may. JFW | T@lk 23:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No mention in the article of how disgusting it tastes. I think this important fact should be included! Graham 03:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Earwax: Wax or not?

Is Earwax really wax? I came to Wikipedia to find out after reading about wax as rocket fuel.. --66.68.138.69 02:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You bet it is! "First of all, it's not at all unusual that we would secrete a wax. What's the difference between an oil, a fat, and a wax? Nothing but the melting point. All are esters (the products of condensation reactions between carboxylic acids and alcohols) with an aliphatic chain of carbon molecules. The length of the chain determines the volatility of the molecule; short chains are more fluid, long chains more solid. Something like olive oil will have shorter chains than something like beeswax, but all are fundamentally similar. They are all classified as lipids. So earwax isn't that unusual—it's a compound on a continuum of perfectly normal lipid products produced by cells." <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/that_revolting_article_about_earwax_and_smegma/P50/> <http://www.lipidlibrary.co.uk/Lipids/waxes/index.htm>

[edit] Removal section

I posted up a part about how peroxide dissolves earwax in the ear but it was taken down. My mother performed this method on me as a child and I have done it ever since to clean out my ears if they are especially blocked up. It works surprisingly well.

Well, that would qualify as original research, unless you have a reference. Furthermore, I very much doubt you poured pure hydrogen peroxide into your ears. http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com/disorders/hearing/wax2.html states "Hydrogen peroxide is present for the mechanical effect -- it does not dissolve ear wax (Burkhart et al, 2000)." AxelBoldt 14:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The word dissolve [2] has more than one meaning. It can mean "to cause to pass into solution", i.e. the action of a solvent. It can also mean "to break up or disperse". The Burkhart reference does not deny the efficacy of peroxide for earwax removal; it only states that it is a mechanical effect, a byproduct rather than a direct effect of the chemical reaction itself.

The following source outlines the efficacy of peroxide and various earwax removal agents: [3]

Drops made of water alone have been demonstrated to be more effective in clearing earwax than have olive oil4 and various ear drop preparations, but not more effective than the combination of hydrogen peroxide and glycerol.2 . . .
Hydrogen peroxide is common in many ear drop preparations for cleaning wax. It is usually mixed with acetic acid (vinegar)12 or urea and glycerol, or it comes as a 3% solution.11 The urea in this preparation acts as a keratolytic agent, easing dislodgment of cerumen stuck to the ear canal. Mixed with glycerin, the peroxide gets into the cerumen, and the expanding oxygen bubbles in the bulk of cerumen causes its disintegration. The mixture of urea with peroxide and glycerol has been demonstrated to be superior to oil mixed with chlorobutenile and chlorobenzene.22 Wilson and Fahmy recommend it as the combination of choice for at-home use for a couple of days.22,25 However, the combination is used less than other commercial preparations because of its high cost.5 There is also a risk to consider: A high peroxide concentration causes local burn.

I recommend this source for expanding the section about earwax removal agents. --Dforest 15:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I have expanded the removal section, but have not incorporated that source. Feel free to do so, though, or to add that source to the external links section - Gobeirne 19:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My ENT used and recommended a preparation that contained diluted preparation containing hydrogen peroxide when he had to clean out my ears. This bit needs a closer look. Bdelisle 08:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

what about expanding on the 'curette' method of removing earwax. I think it used to be on here, but it seems to have dissapeared... the most common method of this is simply the hair pin (the thin black one; the ear wax is caught in loop) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.5.13 (talk • contribs)

God, that seems extremely dangerous! I don't think such dangerous and debatably ineffective (because of the ram-rod effect) advice should be included in Wikipedia. 80.2.194.3 12:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia and much of the discussion is very scientific based, the word "dissolved" should be defined in the strict chemical way "to cause to pass into solution", i.e. the action of a solvent.Satanorsanta 19:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ear hair?

Here's Earwax. There's Nasal hair. But where's Ear hair? Ewlyahoocom 15:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neural or Epithelial control

Is earwax secretion neurally mediated, or locally mediated by the cartilaginous portion of the ear canal? That is, in cases of excessive cerumen is the overproduction likely to be caused by an abnormal neural activity, or due to abnormal epithelial transport? Are there any cases where excessive cerumen production is treated by blocking the neural activity in the ear canal? --130.95.34.213 02:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures of dry earwax

Are there any pictures of dry-type earwax?

hm. I (photographer of the wet-type earwax on the article) have dry-type earwax... I would like to photograph it, but it is not very visible (it's nearly clear in small amounts), and I produce very little of it... which I think is typical for dry-type folks. A similar picture of it on a swab is probably not going to work. --Gmaxwell 00:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see it too; before reading this article I thought all earwax was yellow and sticky. Maybe it would show up better on a black surface? —Keenan Pepper 23:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Who's the sick f*** who took a pic of their earwax on a swab? Ewwww. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.165.46.78 (talk • contribs) .

What did you expect for an article about earwax? Would you rather there be no picture? It's not as bad as Image:Meconium.jpg anyway. —Keenan Pepper 23:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep on the lookout. It looks like yellow dead skin kinda.70.132.31.72 06:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhat of a mixed message that the illustration shows a cotton swab, yet the article specifically warns against using them. Perhaps the photo needs an additional caution: Do not try this at home. MDonfield 03:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I also believe the pictures should be removed. I mean, nice picture, and effort appreciated, but they do suggest to people that its OK to put things in your ear. See other comments under Q-tip below, 80.2.194.3 12:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

At last, I found a worthy picture of dry earwax. It's usually hard getting photos of normal dry earwax. This however is a special case in that its a HUGE piece. Some nice Asian lady was nice enough to have me remove it via curette. The size reason was that she never had her ears cleaned before. Her hearing improved also. I just need to find a way to upload it. The last mystery is if dry earwax flouresces or not under UV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.23.185 (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not give up on your efforts to upload a photograph of "dry earwax." I think the distinction is fascinating. The genetic science behind it is relatively new -- January 2006 -- and places earwax as a "genetic marker" on the same level as blood type and other human attributes that fall within the common knowledge of the general populace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.107.201 (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2007

Okay you can all gross out now, because I just uploaded a photo of my very Asiatic earwax.  ;) Kelvinc (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headphones and earwax

I heard somewhere that listening to music on headphones very often increases earwax production. I came to this article to see more info on it, but I don't see anything. More specifically, I was wondering if plain old loud music (like a concert) can plug up your ears with ear wax. It could just be my imagination, because the fuzzy feeling in my ears is similar to when it's plugged up. Hmm. Nuggit 16:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You may want to look at noise health effects, and specifically a concert would likely induce temporary tinnitus. (I'm an engineer, not a doctor, just an educated guess.) — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 18:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whales

Yep, I thought it odd too. Found the ref I added to the aricle, and this one from the Japanese Embassy in South Africa. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 18:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Is earwax in whales of particular significance in comparison to all other mammals? If not, a specific section for it is probably not warranted.--Jeffro77 12:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't put it in, I was just "defending" it. Do you know of any other mammal whose earwax you can examine to tell its age? :) — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 13:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The article cited for this trivia about earwax in whales seems to be related to justification of Japanese whaling. A cursory search seems to indicate that the age of dolphins can also be determined by this method. Bon appetit!--Jeffro77 04:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lubrication?

Earwax for lubrication??? Of what - sound waves? ;-) --Janke | Talk 17:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It lubricates the skin which lines the ear canals - preventing it from drying up, itching, cracking and becoming prone to infection. Sionman uk 11:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What about "dry" earwax like me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techdawg667 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] q tip

this artical says :It is generally advised not to use cotton swabs (Q-Tips or cotton buds) as these will likely push the wax further down the ear canal and, if used carelessly, perforate the eardrum or worse. Cotton swabs should be used only to clean the external ear:

Then if this is true why is there a picture of ear wax on a q tip dosen't this conterdict itslef68.48.5.139 23:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


Because people are stupid? Read the box that your Q-Tips come in; it very clearly instructs you (the end user) to ONLY use it on the outer ear, and to NOT use it inside the ear canal, for the reason stated above (it cimpacts and pushes the wax further down the canal, which can cause problems and etc).

My box of q-tip clones say nothing about this. Even stupid people deserve not to have their ears damaged.

My doctor has also instructed me on several occasions to avoid sticking Q-Tips into my ear canals. 147.144.65.148 23:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)kazuo.

I think the pictures of the q-tip should be removed, as the external links advise against putting anything in your ear. Putting a q-tip in can make things worse by acting as a ramrod. I recall hearing about a man who was q-tipping his ear in a shower, slipped and destroyed his inner ear. With the number of readers around the world, there is a high chance someone will do this again as a result of reading this article. Plus I'm not sure that a q-tip is the same thing as a cotton swab. I also think there ought to be a warning against putting anything in your ears. 80.0.109.199 12:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanx

Thanks for that descriptive and graphic picture. 67.185.99.246 02:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amendment required

This statement: A cerumenolytic should be used 2-3 times daily for 3-5 days prior to the cerumen extraction.[17] Although most commercially available cerumenolytics available in the U.S. are identical, containing carbamide peroxide (6.5%) and glycerine,[17] a 10% solution of sodium bicarbonate was found to be a more effective cerumenolytic than several commercially-available solutions (Cerumenex, Auralgan) and ... should be made less US-centric. Perhaps a medicl person could do so? Arcturus 15:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Docusate from Colace?

The article says, "Docusate may be extracted from liquid preparations of laxatives, such as Colace." Shouldn't the article tell how to do that?

Steve Wise 13:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Steve Wise

Why on earth would you want to do that?

[edit] Cerumenophagia - eating earwax?

This form of pica does exist, just like nose picking. It is not mentioned in the article.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 14:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Ear wax or earwax?

"earwax" - 540000 Google hits

"ear wax" - 605000 Google hits.

Most of the external links refer to it as ear wax.

On the Wax category page, all the other waxes except beeswax are seperate words.

And one does not refer to candlewax. 80.0.109.199 12:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do people make these elaborate arguments instead of just looking in an authoritative text written to answer questions just as these.

Merriam-Webster: earwax One entry found. earwax Main Entry: ear·wax Pronunciation: \ˈir-ˌwaks\ Function: noun Date: 14th century

The Oxford compact English dictionary has a similar result. Usage dating back to the 1300s ought not be changed without good reason.

[edit] brand names?

I think that perhaps the brand names of the various wax-softening agents should be removed. It seems like unnecessary advertising for these companies' products. A small point, though.

[edit] Stupid question...

I don't understand - why are special solutions used for softening earwax? It always seemed to me that simply filling the ear with warm water under the shower and emptying it a few times would really soften and flush things. And I really don't understand why doctors would risk a 1/1000 chance of perforation just to ram a syringe in there. It's smaller than my elbow. 70.15.114.89 04:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comedy gold

An earwax-like substance does indeed collect inside the ear candle as it burns - but it collects there even if the candle is placed in a clean, dry drinking glass instead of on an ear.

Yeah, heads up, that substance is called "candle wax". Shocking, I know. --75.49.222.55 00:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Q-tip picture

I think it is somewhat innapropriate to show a photograph of earwax on a cotton swab, as the article itself specifically states not use them. Someone who is merely skimming the article might come away with the impression that it is okay to use cotton swabs to remove wax. Asarelah 02:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

People who skim articles and then stick things in the ears are not likely to heed warnings. More seriously, Wikipedia articles could degenerate into an encyclopedia of warnings. In the article about "jet fuel," the reference to its flash point might include a warning: "Do Not Measure Flash Point in Your Bedroom!" Who wants that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.107.201 (talk)

[edit] Elevate importance rating

The note to Wikipedia guidelines For "Importance Rating" states:

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to a student or an expert.

Clearly, by the criteria of the "probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic" this article deserves a higher importance rating. Indeed, the numbers of people who were treated medically for air wax buildup, as cited in the article, supports this assertion.

Yeah! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.107.201 (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2007

[edit] Elevate Quality Assessment

This article appears to meet all the criteria for a class A or FA article. The only thing that it appears to immediately require is an illustration of the ear relevant to the article. The weird thing about Wikipedia is that "original research" is unacceptable, but original high-quality illustrative material is rampant. In any event, does anyone disagree? Any ideas for sources for a good copyright-free illustration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.107.201 (talk)

[edit] Eating Earwax

I agree with the anon user (was not me) who deleted the section. It is not notable, irrelevant. If it caused a political backlash, maybe or if it became a new fad. But I don't see any of that happening, so would support removing the section from the article. (John User:Jwy talk) 08:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst it did not cause a political backlash, per se, it was noted by an extraordinarily large part of the world media. Further there is some discussion regarding eating earwax in section 14 of this same talk page, under Cerumenophagia_-_eating_earwax. Maybe the section could be expanded to more general earwax eating, as well as mentioning other incidents, as this particular incident is certainly the highest profile (and only) one that I know of. Karl2620 (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Unless other examples of this practice can be cited, along with some solid data in the primary literature with regard to its frequency and implications (if any) I would support the deletion of this section. The incident with the Australian PM should at most be mentioned in passing. Media and political responses to it are completely irrelevant to an article about ear wax. That the PMs political affiliation (Labour) is apparently worth mentioning smells strongly of someone's political position making its way into Wikipedia. DoktorDec (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
DoktorDec, I like your reworking of that section, and have no qualms. Thank-you. Karl2620 (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

this section is not notable, and i was convinced it was vandalism. i went to the trouble of checking the references because the section seems so extraenous that i thought a book from the 1800's by Thomas Thomson was obscure enough to be suspect. the fact that it isnt, and is, in fact, an attempt to make encyclopedic something that isnt, is even more disappointing. i suggest its removal. Skp2y F thorax (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Light my fire.

Wow, dry earwax burns pretty fast and long. Is it the lipid content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.228.0 (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"fast" and "long" seem to be contradictory in this context. Plus, this sounds like a question regarding original research. How does this apply to editing/improving the article? -Verdatum (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lip Balm

I've removed the following section about earwax being used as lip balm:
The first lip balm was actually made out of earwax.[1] It was functional, but the taste was undesirable. However, its popularity has grown in recent years. A small but growing fan base, committed to the use of all-natural products, touts its use as a superior organic alternative to other varieties of lip balm.
The reference cited (http://beauty.about.com/cs/facialskin/a/lip_care.htm) doesn't cite any references itself, and doesn't strike me as a particularly reliable source in itself. Very happy for anyone to reinstate it if they can provide a better reference. - Gobeirne (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Earwax: What You Should Know" link given for the section about eating earwax has no information whatsoever about this. I accessed the article via the ProQuest database and found this article in Vol. 75, Iss. 10, p. 1530 If this statement is indeed true the link needs to be corrected. Otherwise this section should be removed. TS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.1.23 (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Agreed. The fraudulent reference has now been removed. - Gobeirne (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Hypocrisy!

from the article: "Use of Q-tips or cotton swabs are not recommended" yet, nearly all the pictures in this article have earwax on cottons swabs in them. anyone? Techdawg667 (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)